- Oct 26, 2006
- 21,869
- 6,275
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Single
So, things have been winding down to a close, and I initially thought I wouldn't bother with a thread on this, but the continued insistence that this was a loving, peaceful protest against evil white people who wanted to recreate Poltergeist, but with a pipeline instead of a housing addition just sort of irked me.
So, what is the truth about Standing Rock/DAPL? Let's find out!
Myth Number 1: "They're putting it through Sioux land!"
The vast, vast majority of it goes through private property. The less than half of a percent that isn't is owned by the government itself, not the tribe.
Myth Number 2: "But it's still sacred burial land!"
If that's the case, they must've buried them real deep, like a morbid version of hide-and-go-seek. The North Dakota State Historical Society archaeology team found nothing to support the claims of burial grounds or other sites. I.E. there were no cultural or human remains found.
Myth Number 3: "Well, they just dug up the evidence and threw it away!"
Yeah, this doesn't work for two reasons. First, as the judge noted in his denial, for a large part of the path through the disputed land, it's following an existing natural gas pipeline and the existing energy line structure. i.e. this place was dug up before. Not only that, but that contradicts every other time the DAPL route encountered possible historical sites.
First, DA used prior cultural surveys to devise a route to avoid sites that were already identified as historical places or potential historical places. From these, they created an initial path for the pipeline, and conducted new, extensive surveys which covered all of the route in both Dakota's and much of it for Iowa and Illinois. These weren't hacks, either. They were professional, licensed archaeologists who conducted Class II and III surveys. The Class III require approval and coordination with each state's Historical Preservation office. Whenever they identified a potentially eligible site, they chose to reroute it in almost all instances. In North Dakota, for example, it was modified 140 times.
So after all that time, all that effort, and all that money, I'm going to be just a wee bit skeptical that this was the one time they decided to throw it all away.
Myth Number 4: "But they never talked to the tribe about it!"
Not for lack of trying.The Corps' Tribal Liason, Joel Ames, tried to set up a meeting regarding the DAPL in September of 2014. In that month alone, he tried to schedule a meeting with Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Young, but Young avoided any attempt to do so. In early October, other Corps officials got involved and attempted to hold an arranged meeting with the tribe's council and DA on the reservation. Despite arriving on time, however, Tribal Chairman Archambault told the Corps that the conclave had started earlier than planned and had already ended.
For the rest of October, Ames tried to schedule a meeting with Young. Finally, in November, Young agreed to a meeting on the reservation. Once again, however, this was done in bad faith because, while Ames showed up, Young did not and the tribe used that as an excuse to remove the DAPL from the agenda.
This was to be their MO from then on, because all know that hide-and-go-seek is the basis for our legal system.
Myth Number 5: "It's a risk to their water supply!"
Do you mean Fort Yates? The place the tribe kept on about? Good news! That is no longer their primary source of water. As of this year, the tribe is getting their water 70 miles downstream from the pipeline, instead. This is due to the opening of a long-planned water treatment plant. Something the tribe was aware of the entire time they complained about Ft. Yates.
Now, one could argue that there's still a risk. True. However, state officials have repeatedly stated that the risk is very small, and the head of North Dakota's Public Service Commission went so far as to say: "The new intake really does effectively reduce the concerns that this oil pipeline could impact the tribe's water supply."
Myth Number 5(ii): "So you're saying there's a chance...? BAN IT!"
Yes, there is always some risk, but the judge did not deem it a credible worry. Mind you, this wasn't some hardcore conservative one of the Republicans put in. This was an Obama appointed judge.
?Myth? Number 6: "The cops are just attacking peaceful protesters!"
This one is actually half-true. Cops and security have been very heavy-handed towards protesters, however these protests have not always been peaceful. Bottles, rocks and even home-made explosives have apparently been hurled at the cops at times. Does this excuse the heavy-handed tactics the cops have taken as a result? I'd argue it really doesn't, but this is still not some MLK Jr., peaceful protest type situation. Tribe members claim that they are not involved with any of the violence, but who knows? I'd be willing to believe them, but they've lied so much at this point that I'd probably believe Brian Williams or Dan Rather before I did them.
Sources
http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/order-denying-PI.pdf
North Dakota archaeologist: No human remains found at pipeline site
For Standing Rock Sioux, new water system may reduce oil leak risk
Official Archaeologist Report: No Cultural Material or Human Remains Found in Dakota Access Pipeline Route - Say Anything <--Yes, this is a blog, but it has a copy of the final human remains report, which is what I'm using it for.
Ten facts you may not know about Dakota Access Pipeline project - Energy Business Review
https://news.vice.com/story/standing-rock-protest-dakota-pipeline
So, what is the truth about Standing Rock/DAPL? Let's find out!
Myth Number 1: "They're putting it through Sioux land!"
The vast, vast majority of it goes through private property. The less than half of a percent that isn't is owned by the government itself, not the tribe.
Myth Number 2: "But it's still sacred burial land!"
If that's the case, they must've buried them real deep, like a morbid version of hide-and-go-seek. The North Dakota State Historical Society archaeology team found nothing to support the claims of burial grounds or other sites. I.E. there were no cultural or human remains found.
Myth Number 3: "Well, they just dug up the evidence and threw it away!"
Yeah, this doesn't work for two reasons. First, as the judge noted in his denial, for a large part of the path through the disputed land, it's following an existing natural gas pipeline and the existing energy line structure. i.e. this place was dug up before. Not only that, but that contradicts every other time the DAPL route encountered possible historical sites.
First, DA used prior cultural surveys to devise a route to avoid sites that were already identified as historical places or potential historical places. From these, they created an initial path for the pipeline, and conducted new, extensive surveys which covered all of the route in both Dakota's and much of it for Iowa and Illinois. These weren't hacks, either. They were professional, licensed archaeologists who conducted Class II and III surveys. The Class III require approval and coordination with each state's Historical Preservation office. Whenever they identified a potentially eligible site, they chose to reroute it in almost all instances. In North Dakota, for example, it was modified 140 times.
So after all that time, all that effort, and all that money, I'm going to be just a wee bit skeptical that this was the one time they decided to throw it all away.
Myth Number 4: "But they never talked to the tribe about it!"
Not for lack of trying.The Corps' Tribal Liason, Joel Ames, tried to set up a meeting regarding the DAPL in September of 2014. In that month alone, he tried to schedule a meeting with Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Young, but Young avoided any attempt to do so. In early October, other Corps officials got involved and attempted to hold an arranged meeting with the tribe's council and DA on the reservation. Despite arriving on time, however, Tribal Chairman Archambault told the Corps that the conclave had started earlier than planned and had already ended.
For the rest of October, Ames tried to schedule a meeting with Young. Finally, in November, Young agreed to a meeting on the reservation. Once again, however, this was done in bad faith because, while Ames showed up, Young did not and the tribe used that as an excuse to remove the DAPL from the agenda.
This was to be their MO from then on, because all know that hide-and-go-seek is the basis for our legal system.
Myth Number 5: "It's a risk to their water supply!"
Do you mean Fort Yates? The place the tribe kept on about? Good news! That is no longer their primary source of water. As of this year, the tribe is getting their water 70 miles downstream from the pipeline, instead. This is due to the opening of a long-planned water treatment plant. Something the tribe was aware of the entire time they complained about Ft. Yates.
Now, one could argue that there's still a risk. True. However, state officials have repeatedly stated that the risk is very small, and the head of North Dakota's Public Service Commission went so far as to say: "The new intake really does effectively reduce the concerns that this oil pipeline could impact the tribe's water supply."
Myth Number 5(ii): "So you're saying there's a chance...? BAN IT!"
Yes, there is always some risk, but the judge did not deem it a credible worry. Mind you, this wasn't some hardcore conservative one of the Republicans put in. This was an Obama appointed judge.
?Myth? Number 6: "The cops are just attacking peaceful protesters!"
This one is actually half-true. Cops and security have been very heavy-handed towards protesters, however these protests have not always been peaceful. Bottles, rocks and even home-made explosives have apparently been hurled at the cops at times. Does this excuse the heavy-handed tactics the cops have taken as a result? I'd argue it really doesn't, but this is still not some MLK Jr., peaceful protest type situation. Tribe members claim that they are not involved with any of the violence, but who knows? I'd be willing to believe them, but they've lied so much at this point that I'd probably believe Brian Williams or Dan Rather before I did them.
Sourceshttp://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/order-denying-PI.pdf
North Dakota archaeologist: No human remains found at pipeline site
For Standing Rock Sioux, new water system may reduce oil leak risk
Official Archaeologist Report: No Cultural Material or Human Remains Found in Dakota Access Pipeline Route - Say Anything <--Yes, this is a blog, but it has a copy of the final human remains report, which is what I'm using it for.
Ten facts you may not know about Dakota Access Pipeline project - Energy Business Review
https://news.vice.com/story/standing-rock-protest-dakota-pipeline
